THE LEARNING COMMUNITY SURVEY


 

Summary of Learning Community Survey

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

The Mumbai Adolescent Girls Learning Community………………………………………………………………………………… 3

 

Why is this topic important?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 3

 

Survey Purpose, Methodology and Implementation…………………………………………………………………………………. 4

 

Why is This Survey Design Different?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5

 

Limitations of the Study and Challenges faced…………………………………………………………………………………………… 5

 

Characteristics of the Population Surveyed…………………………………………………………………………………………….. 6

 

Survey Findings……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 7

 

Geographic Location of Restrictions on girls………………………………………………………………………………………….. 7

 

Why are Girls Restricted?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 8

 

What Can Boys do that girls cannot?………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9

 

WHO IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS ON GIRLS?………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9

 

Autonomy and Control over Choices………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 10

 

How restrictions affect girls personally…………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11

 

What Can be Done to Reduce Restrictions?………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11

 

Discussion and Conclusions…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13

 

Main Conclusions………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14

 

  1. Conclusions on Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 14

 

  1. Conclusions on Restrictions……………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 14

 

  1. Suggested Actions to Reduce Restrictions…………………………………………………………………………….. 14

 

Next Steps for Strategic Planning…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 15

 

  1. Drill down analysis by the girls………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15

 

  1. Focus Groups………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 15

 

  1. Other Analyses………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16

 

 

This report was authored by EMpower – The Emerging Markets Foundation, for more

 

information please contact ndhawan@empowerweb.org or jpushkaran@empowerweb.org

 

 

 

 

 

 

2

 

THE MUMBAI ADOLESCENT GIRLS LEARNING COMMUNITY

 

EMpower formed the Learning Community in 2012 to empower adolescent girls to lead change in their local communities. It provides training and support to adolescent girls and young female staff (mentors) of its eight member organizations for them to lead interventions and seek solutions to problems that affect girls, with 2 major objectives: to build the leadership capacities of adolescent girls to effectuate change within their own communities and to build the professional capacity of junior staff within the member organizations. In 2012, four member organizations – Vacha, Akshara, Aangan and Vidhayak Sansad worked together to form this community, which was then coordinated by Vacha Trust. In 2013, three more organizations joined to scale up the impact: CORO, Dosti and Stree Mukti Sanghatana. In 2015, Young Women Christian Association (YWCA) of Bombay joined the Learning Community. Five of the eight organizations, Vacha, Aangan, Akshara, Vidhayak Sansad and CORO are EMpower grantee partners.1 The Learning Community has now completed its 4th year and thus far has trained over 250 girls and 30 mentors.

 

The program runs on a one-year cycle, and completed its fourth year in January 2017. Each NGO recruits a cohort of adolescent girls and mentors, who are trained in leadership and project planning skills. The girls choose the priority issues that they wish to tackle and develop a work plan. For the past several years they have focused on different restrictions on, and mobility and public safety of adolescent girls. For the rest of the year, the girls implement their plans, with monitoring and guidance by the mentors through frequent meetings. At the end of the year, the learning community holds two joint events: one for all member organizations to come together and plan a collaborative initiative; and another public meeting where they invite external stakeholders such as senior staff from their organizations, elected officials, individuals from civil society and the media so that they can showcase their achievements.

 

WHY IS THIS TOPIC IMPORTANT?

 

There are several insights from the academic literature on women’s safety and the necessity on the part of women to reclaim the city from their male counterparts. Shilpa Ranade states that “the control of women’s movement has been central to the maintenance of a gender regime informed by patriarchy” (Ranade, 2007: 1525). Girls must maintain the boundaries that have been created for them or else run the risk of being called into question for their behavior. “The phenomenon of boundary maintenance is a crucial element in … the vulnerability of young girls and the emphasis on their purity and restraint in behavior. This is expressed in the construction of legitimate’ and ‘proper’ modes of speech, demeanor and behavior for young girls and in the organization of their space and time” (Dube 1988:15). A girl, when accessing space, must do so only to fulfil a particular function, such as going to school, buying groceries or visiting a family member. “Women can access public space legitimately only when she can manufacture a sense of purpose for being there” (Ranade: 2007: 1521). This construct limits the ability for a girl to access space as and when she wants to, and maintains “social order” through the fear of her potential unsafety and the risk of ruining her reputation if she was to enter or “be caught” in the public space without a purpose. Shilpa Phadke argues that “what women need in order to access public space as citizens is not so much the provision of safety as the right to take risks” (Phadke 2007:1510). She argues that rather than actual safety concerns that keep girls out of public space, it is the implications for perceptions of their character that deters girls from entering the public sphere.

 

The “exclusion of women from public places…manifests itself in unequal status, loss of access to empowering information, incompetence in making informed decisions and choices. Expansion of space, therefore, emerges as a key issue in women’s empowerment” (Paul: 2001: 249). Without equitable access to space and the ability to engage freely with others in public, girls are unable to be active agents in the world in which they live.

 

 

  • Vidhayak Sansad left the Learning Community in 2016.

 

 

 

3

 

 

The Adolescent Girls Learning Community is an example of a strategy deployed to contest and challenge women’s access to public space. Girls transcend numerous barriers – physical, linguistic, religious, and even socioeconomic – to come together with a greater sense of purpose, which Appadurai (2001) argues leads to the deepening of democracy and citizenship. The methodology employed by the Learning Community is to enable these girls to understand their rights so that they can challenge any infringements upon them with self-awareness and knowledge of their entitlements to citizenship and their relationship with their city. Phadke states that “a feminist demand for public space located in an understanding of rights would clearly distinguish it from a more paternalistic claim to safety (therefore protection) in public space.” (2007:1516)

 

“Safety… is linked directly to the level of claim that one feels to a space.” (Phadke 2007:1511). In many ways, the primary purpose of Learning Community activities was to ensure that these girls’ claim to their city increased, so that they would feel more confident when engaging with their city. Through these activities, the girls recognized “their legitimate right to public space as citizens [which] has the capacity to transform women’s relationship to public space.” (Phadke 2007:1511). These activities were all undertaken in the public sphere, so through their participation, girls were challenging the very structures that would keep them within the home. Moreover, not only did they dance, act and play in the streets, they also accessed several services for the first time. Girls visited police stations and got relevant permissions for all their activities (flash mobs, street rallies), they also organized health camps so that girls in the community were aware of their rights to healthcare, finally they engaged with elected officials about the observations that they made while they were conducting safety maps of their community. The Learning Community activities were sites of social transformation, which momentarily altered the meaning of space in the city as an inclusive, welcoming and safe space for the girls in the group. In many ways, these transgressions are declarations for a right to the city and “a transformed and renewed right to urban life.” (Lefebvre 1996:158)

 

However, the available literature, both in academia as well as in civil society, points to safety and unsafety of the city as opposed to looking at restrictions, which is how most girls experience adolescence. Therefore, the girls recognized that they needed to collect data in order to illustrate their experience in the city and how they experience restrictions as a consequence of becoming an adolescent girl. The focus of this survey is innovative, and is vital to understand this under-theorized issue that affects girls living in the urban metropolis.

 

SURVEY PURPOSE, METHODOLOGY AND IMPLEMENTATION

 

In the third year of the Learning Community, the girls collectively decided that they needed data to supplement their experiences and on the ground interventions within their communities. They too realized that the discourse usually is about women’s safety in the city and not about ‘restrictions’ that adolescent girls face, such as not being able to travel alone, play outdoors or go to school freely, which are the first tangible experiences of becoming an adolescent girl in an urban environment. The girls believed that if they had data about the extent of the restrictions placed upon them, they would be able to do something about them; and for that reason, they decided to conceive, design and collect data focused on the topic of restrictions as opposed to safety, which has been done before. Their ultimate goal is to foster a community environment that lessens harmful restrictions on them and increases their safety, thus expanding their choices and mobility.

 

Accordingly, in 2015, the Learning Community (LC) girls from all eight NGO members undertook a community survey in each of the communities where they live on restrictions faced or perceived by girls, to use in community advocacy. The survey questions focused on issues of restrictions, mobility, and safety in their communities. With the help of Helen Joseph, a local researcher,2 and their NGO mentors, the 80 LC girls took leadership in designing the survey questions, thus putting into practice a basic principle of the Learning Community -that supporting girls to take on a leadership role and make decisions to design their own community interventions is an effective path to girls’

 

 

  • Field work coordinator, College of Social Work Nirmal Niketan

 

 

 

4

 

 

empowerment. The girls also took leadership in planning the survey outreach, and were the first respondents of the survey themselves — an important step in training them on how to administer the surveys.

 

The survey used convenience sampling, with the LC girls planning how to reach out to other adolescent girls between the ages of 12-19 involved in the same NGO, and in their schools and communities. The final survey had ten multiple choice questions and, if all questions were answered, took approximately 30 minutes to apply, including initial introductions and rapport building conversation. The girls applied the survey from September through December 2015, using oral interviews, making notes and writing responses on paper copies, and turning in surveys to EMpower. A local researcher, Dakshu Jindal, input the data on an excel spreadsheet, analyzed the data, and wrote a basic quantitative report with some quotes of the main findings on all survey questions.

 

WHY IS THIS SURVEY DESIGN DIFFERENT?

 

This research follows an approach known as Participatory Action Research (PAR). Rather than more traditional constructs of research, which typically rely on investigation undertaken by ‘objective’ outside parties, PAR is focused on participation and action. And it usually directly involves those who understand and are most affected by the topic under inquiry, who shape the research and act upon the findings.

 

In the case of this survey, the girls in the Adolescent Girl Learning Community had the idea for the survey, they designed the questions, and they carried out the survey (the data synthesis and analysis was done by an outside expert). That girls generated and led the study is uncommon in any context but particularly in their communities, where their ability to act independently and to lead – as the survey results show! – is hobbled continuously.

 

The action part of Participatory Action Research is the next phase (see pages 12-14 below) when the girls and mentors in the Learning Community digest the aggregate results as well as those that are particular to their communities, with an eye to finding the most consequential yet feasible changes.

 

LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY AND CHALLENGES FACED

 

The LC adolescent girl leaders turned in a total of 1,300 surveys out of 1,500 distributed. Although the girls have secondary level of education, they are not trained data collectors, and many surveys were blank or unusable. Every girl was given 50 forms, and given four months to get them done. Out of the 1,300 surveys returned, around 350 were mainly blank and could not be used, suggesting that for some girls, the task of completing 50 surveys was a bit overwhelming. The total final sample was 942 girls and young women.

 

Limitations of the study include:

 

  • The convenience samples are mainly based on the LC Girl leaders’ social networks; in some cases, these networks do include the most vulnerable girls (e.g. wastepickers), but in other cases included girls who live in slum environments but are from more affluent backgrounds (i.e., their parents are salaried and they have a relatively stable income). The sample included schoolmates or other girls involved with the same NGO, but not involved in the LC. Each NGO should keep in mind who the sample represents as they interpret the findings.

 

  • The quality of the notes taken by some of the girl leaders makes some responses difficult to interpret.

 

  • It is not possible to analyze how the blank surveys might have biased the sample, resulting in under- or over-representation of a particular neighborhood or sub-set of girls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5

 

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION SURVEYED

 

The girls who are part of the Adolescent Girls Learning Community are all subject to the pressures of the social structures that confine them physically and mentally in adolescence. Additionally, they are part of the ‘invisible’ population of the city. They come from a diversity of backgrounds, including:

 

  • Marathi-speaking girls from the Katkari tribe who live in semi-urban areas on the fringes of Mumbai;

 

  • Marathi-speaking migrants whose families have travelled to Mumbai;

 

  • Hindi-speaking girls who are born in Mumbai but whose families are from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. (This group is made up of both Hindus and Muslims (both Shi’a and Sunni);

 

  • Buddhist/Dalits; and

 

  • the girls’ first language is Urdu, Marathi or Hindi.

 

All survey respondents were girls and young women from slum communities in Mumbai and Thane. 56% of respondents were Hindu, 31% Muslim, and 11% Buddhist. 50% of the group was Marathi-speaking, 40% Hindi-speaking, and 10% other. Their socio-economic status also varies; some are children of daily laborers who work in construction, others are the children of domestic workers, and the wealthier girls are children of auto wallahs (rickshaws) and taxi drivers.

 

What binds these girls together is that they all live in bastis (urban slum neighborhoods) or, in the case of girls from Vidhyak Sansad, from peri-urban localities around Mumbai; are in school; and, are part of “the other citizen,” (Kapur 2010: 139). That is, they are not part of the normative (middle class, Hindu, upper caste, male) mold of citizenship. In addition, their right to the city, their access to public space and their freedom to ‘loiter’ is called into question by their gender. Therefore, their citizenship within the city is lesser than their male counterparts. In many ways, these girls are also “citizens without a city” (Appadurai 2001:27), that is, they are invisible to policy makers and city planners. Nonetheless, their families are vital to the economy of the city. The girls are using the learning community to challenge the normative perceptions of citizenship to claim their rightful place within the city.

 

Many girls and young women responding to the survey were in secondary school or had completed secondary school.

The median highest level of education completed was 10th grade.

 

The mean and median age of the girls surveyed was 16 years, with some respondents outside the designated age range. Around half of Akshara respondents were 19 or over, with a sizeable proportion outside of the adolescent age range. Yet around one-third of the Dosti respondents were ages 7-10, pulling down the average range to the lowest of all the NGOs. However, they have been included in the survey results.

 

  TOTAL Average Median
  RESPONSES Age Age
Akshara 73 20.6 19.5
Coro 48 14.8 15.5
Dosti (1) 98 14.1 15
Aangan LC 144 15 15
SMS 97 16.3 17
Vacha 126 14.6 16
Vidhayak Sansad 137 15.3 15
YWCA 150 16.4 16

 

(1) 33 7-10 year olds pulled down average in Dosti

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

 

SURVEY FINDINGS

 

This section presents and discusses the most relevant findings on the ten survey questions, with the first nine questions exploring the nature of restrictions on girls, who imposes them, and their perceptions of the reasons for imposing them. The final question explores girls’ opinions on what could be done to reduce their restrictions.

 

GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION OF RESTRICTIONS ON GIRLS

 

The first multiple choice question on the survey asks girls to identify the places where they have easy access, restricted (partial or conditional) access, or are not allowed to go at all. This question also highlights places girls have never been, which is harder to interpret, since reasons other than restrictions could explain their answers.

 

The following table is sorted by the number of “easy” responses indicating lack of restrictions, and shows that 70 – 91% of girls pointed to relatively easy access to school, shops, toilet, market, road, and temple.

 

  Easy % easy Restricted Not allowed Never been Total
             
School 847 91% 25 39 23 935
             
Shops 750 84% 37 31 72 890
             
Public Toilet 749 86% 41 37 47 874
             
Market 701 75% 62 120 52 935
             
Road 673 73% 96 110 37 916
             
Temple 594 70% 59 78 120 851
             
Festivals 518 59% 150 114 100 882
             
Playground 480 55% 116 148 127 871
             
Health Clinics 462 56% 49 82 234 827
             
Newspaper stand 430 53% 43 76 269 818
             
Bank 416 49% 56 110 269 851
             
Main Road 431 48% 122 216 131 900
             
Mall 393 47% 87 104 245 829
             
Railway / metro Station 365 40% 86 179 272 902
             
Crowded Place 356 40% 129 270 145 900
             
Police Station 252 30% 59 96 436 843
             
Cinema 233 26% 100 162 403 898
             

 

 

In some cases, the findings on places that girls have “never been” are harder to interpret, because the reasons are not necessarily gender-related restrictions. The lack of access could be influenced by distances in their neighborhood, cost, or social exclusion due to caste/class (e.g. for malls or cinema). There are many possible reasons why some girls have never been to a police station or bank, including the fact that they might not know what services they could avail, not have the need or have misconceptions about accessing services. Between a quarter to half of the girls had never been to the following:

 

  Never been % of total responses  
       
Police Station 436 52%  
   
       

 

 

 

7

 

Cinema 403 45%  
   
       
Station 272 30%  
   
       
Bank 269 32%  
   
       
Newspaper stand 269 33%  
   
       
Mall 245 30%  
   
       
Health Clinics 234 28%  
   
       

 

 

15-30% of respondents reported that they are not allowed to go to the following places:

 

  Not allowed % of total responses  
       
Crowded Place 270 30%  
     
       
Main Road 216 24%  
     
       
Railroad/Metro Station 179 20%  
     
       
Cinema 162 18%  
     
       
Playground 148 17%  
     
       

 

 

The ease of access to education for more than 90% in this sample is remarkable, revealing excellent community support for girls’ education. As suggested by the literature cited earlier, another broader pattern is that restrictions tend to be relaxed for areas related to necessities (toilet), domestic responsibilities (shops & market) and religious activities, and more restricted for all activities related to recreation and cultural life. For example, 45% of the respondents have some or total restrictions on use of playgrounds, and the majority had little access to the cinema or the mall. “Crowded places” signify a judgment of lack of safety, and probably is related to the restrictions on going to the railroad/metro station.

 

WHY ARE GIRLS RESTRICTED?

 

The multiple-choice questions designed by the LC girl leaders reveal their experiences of both gender and caste/religious discrimination, as well as their recognition of legitimate concerns for their safety in their neighborhoods. Gender-related responses include “to control us,” “tradition,” and “because people don’t like girls.” The phrasing is remarkably different from surveys designed by professional adults, and reveals the benefits of having young people participate actively in survey design, because the survey also serves to amplify their thought processes. In addition, it is worth noting that the girls who designed the surveys, through their exposure to issues of gender, were more conscious of concepts such as being controlled by men or adults.

 

794 responses3 with some accompanying comments reveal how girls chafe at the restrictions imposed on them due to gender discrimination.

 

Why are girls restricted? Frequency Example of comments girls made
 

 

 

   
         
         

 

  • Respondents could respond affirmatively to as many of the multiple-choice items as they chose.

 

 

 

8

 

 

       
Why are girls restricted?

(लड़कियों पर पाबन्दी क्यों है?)

Frequency

 

     Example of comments girls made

(लडकियों के बयानों के कुछ उदाहरण)

 
To control us

 

( हम पर नियंत्रण रखने के लिए )

 

 

 

 

 

398

 

 

“ताकि हम बुरी आदतों में न पड़े”, “लडको से बात न करना”, “ताकि हम बिरादरी का नाम ख़राब न कर्रे”

 

“So that we don’t develop bad habits”;  “don’t talk to boys”; “so that we don’t ruin their name”

 
   
     
( हमारी सुरक्षा के लिए )

 

For our safety

396 “ बलात्कार “, “परिवार का डर” , “हमारे साथ कुछ बुरा न होजाए उसकी चिंता “

 

“Rape”; “family is scared”; “they don’t want anything bad to happen to us”

 
   
     
(परंपरा)

 

Tradition

275  “माता पिता का समाज में सम्मान रखने के लिए”

 

“So that parents can maintain their respect in society”

 
       
  (क्युकी लोगो को लड़कियां पसंद नहीं है)

 

  “लडकियों को बोझ समझा जाता है” , “ लडकियों का जन्म बुरा

माना जाता है”, “लडकियों की शादी के लिए बहुत पैसा लगता है

“They are considered a burden”; “being born a girl is wrong”;

 
Because people don’t like girls 121 “have to pay for a girls wedding”  
       
 

 

(क्युकी हम अलग है)

 

Because we are different

51 “ हम मुस्लिम है इसलिए हममे घर के अन्दर ढककर रहना होता है”

 

“Because we are Muslims and we have to stay inside home –

 
(illness/caste/dress) covered”  
   
 

(क्युकी हम कम है)

 

Because we are lesser

 

45    
caste/religion/language/money    
     
 

Others

20    
       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WHAT CAN BOYS DO THAT GIRLS CANNOT?

 

Most responses to this open-ended question capture girls’ perceptions of boys’ lack of restrictions and freedom as compared to theirs. The most frequent observation is that boys “can go out at night” or “stay out until late.” Other frequent themes include boys’ ability to go anywhere, to bicycle, to wear what they want (especially jeans), and to get a job. Many interpreted the question to refer to capabilities rather than restrictions, and in all these cases asserted that girls are equal in capabilities to boys. “Girls can do everything but they are restricted.” Although there were scattered references to gender issues such as sexual violence or harassment, freedom to decide whom to marry, these observations are minor in comparison to the more general focus on restrictions on girls’ mobility and activities in public vs. boys’ relative freedom.

 

WHO IMPOSES RESTRICTIONS ON GIRLS?

 

The survey asked about family members, peers, influential people in the community, and local authorities. The responses make it clear that peers and local authorities play a fairly insignificant role. More than 1,000 responses pointed to various family members, 4 while to a lesser extent (729) teachers, neighbors, and elders imposed restrictions on girls.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • “Paternal grandparents” is a separate category because girls’ families are most likely to live with them.

 

 

 

9

 

    Who Puts Restrictions On You?        
Paternal Grandparents       137                
                     
Friends       163              
Relatives           248            
Neighbors           263            
Teachers             328          
Parents                     560  
                         
0 100 200 300 400 500 600  
                         

 

AUTONOMY AND CONTROL OVER CHOICES

 

When reviewing the table below, the tendencies are clear. Most of this sample of girls are able to exercise their choices regarding education, food, clothing, and hospital care. However, almost 70% have no or little control over whom they marry, and more than 60% have no or little control over access to social media, or any transportation, limiting their range of mobility to their immediate neighborhood.

 

When asked how much control do girls have on decisions related to:

 

  Number of responses % None or Little % Yes, have control
       
Marriage 873 69% 31%
       
Social Media 919 63% 37%
       
Cycle/transport 913 62% 38%
       
Hospital 873 37% 63%
       
Clothes 923 30% 70%
       
Education 919 18% 82%
       
Food 916 15% 85%
       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10

 

% Girls with No or Little Control over Decisions Related to….

 

80%

70% 69%      
63% 62%    
60%        
       
50%        
  37%    
40%      
  30%    
       
30%        
  18% 15%  
20%    
     
       
10%        
       
0%        
       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although 18% said that they had no control over decisions about school, this finding is difficult to interpret. It could either mean that they are unable to control their choice of schools, or that their very access to education is restricted. The 15% with no control over their food, judging from the comments, might include some girls remarking that they are not allowed to eat junk food.

 

HOW RESTRICTIONS AFFECT GIRLS PERSONALLY

 

The comments on restrictions reveal broader patterns of isolation and limitation on girls’ interactions with others, and especially on how they are silenced. Most girls are not allowed to talk to boys at all, many cannot talk to community members, and some girls speak of not being able to have friends. Within the home, many remarked that they must talk softly, not talk loudly or laugh. It is not surprising, therefore, that one of the striking findings from the survey is that more than half of the girls (479) said that the restrictions affect their “personality.” Around 25% mentioned that their skills and knowledge are compromised. These findings underscore the importance of Learning Community goals to raise girls’ voices – encouraging them to speak out in a group and in public – as a key element in girls’ empowerment.

 

WHAT CAN BE DONE TO REDUCE RESTRICTIONS?

 

The final part of the survey focused on the domains where girls suggest how and where to address the restrictions they experience. Although the survey results show that it is mainly family members and relatives who impose restrictions on the girls, the girls do not focus mainly on interventions with family members when suggesting solutions. The overwhelming majority of responses focused on the major themes promoted in Learning Community projects: public safety and mobility, with the main emphasis in responses on increased policing and other security measures such as CCTV. The solutions proposed by the girls would improve their safety in public places and in school, which could lead to family members being willing to relax some of their restrictions.

 

 

The following table describes the areas for intervention that were most mentioned in the survey. Almost half of the girls focused on improvements in policing and/or in street safety.

 

 

 

 

 

11

 

Percent of Respondents Naming Each Possible Area of Intervention (N=874)    
                 
Street Police Toilet Family Self Rail School/ Playground Festival
  Station       station College    
                 
47% 45% 34% 27% 24% 16% 16% 9% 7%
                 

 

 

 

Areas for Intervention

50%           47%             45%

45%

40%

34%

35%

30% 27%      
24%      
25%      
       
       
20% 16% 16%    
15%        
  9% 7%  
10%    
     
       
5%        
       
0%        
       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Forty-five percent of the girls pointed to police protection and enforcement specifically. Of these 389 responses, 107 (28%) suggested a variety of measures related to police work in enforcing the law (investigation, “speedy action” etc.), 99 (25%) suggested “increased police protection,” and 72 (19%) suggested “lady police.”

 

Focus of suggestions on policing

 

POLICE STATION Increased police Gender-related (lady police, Enforcement-related: Strict laws,  
  protection talk to women properly) punishment, investigation, action  
         
TOTAL RESPONSES 389 99 72 107  
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12

 

Focus of suggestions on policing

 

120

107

99

100

 

80                                                                        72

 

60

 

40

 

20

 

0

 

Increased police protection             Gender-related                  Enforcement-related

 

 

 

 

A slighter higher number (411) focused on the “street” as an area of intervention, with the majority of suggestions on CCTV electronic surveillance (272) and increased police protection (82).

 

However, in the comments under other categories, both policing and CCTV were the most common themes. CCTV was mentioned 773 times in the surveys, with the top priorities for its placement as the street and toilets (201).

 

Some of the restrictions are not related to family and community concerns about girls’ safety, but rather focus on the enforcement of traditional gender roles and the safeguarding of family honor. These restrictions require a different order of solution, as suggested by the girls to focus more on interventions within the home and most importantly within themselves as individuals.

 

Around 25% of girls focused more on family (235) and individual (206) suggestions, which might indicate a greater focus on gender discrimination. Reflecting their program orientations, 42-59% of respondents from the localities where Vacha, Vidhayak Sansad, and Akshara work focused on working with families as the solution.

 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

 

The process of reaching out to apply the surveys, analyzing the findings, and the possibility of disseminating the findings to community stakeholders gave the girls unprecedented access to key adults in their local communities – parents, teachers, local leaders, police – with messages that carried the legitimacy of opinions and experiences of a wide range of young people and adults. The surveys jump-started the girls’ potential for community leadership, had favorable impact on community opinions, and started a process of dialogue that is planned to continue, now that they have tangible data from several wards in Mumbai. The girls and the Learning Community organizations believe that this data is a springboard for future, strategic interventions on the part of the Learning Community and they will be using the results for this survey as they go into strategic planning in the summer of 2017.

 

This section summarizes the main findings from this survey, which underscore how girls are disadvantaged by gender-related restrictions, and how other restrictions related to safety could be addressed. This report, and any additional summaries or analyses of the raw data can serve three main purposes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

13

 

 

  1. To facilitate girls’ advocacy with local community officials, leaders, and parents to improve public safety and girls’ mobility. These findings help legitimize girl leader demands in dialogue and negotiations.

 

  1. To identify girls’ needs in their communities as LC members develop their future strategies.

 

  1. To improve methods for future surveys conducted by LC members.

 

MAIN CONCLUSIONS

 

  1. Conclusions on Methodology

 

  1. There are significant advantages to having girls design community surveys for their peers; the survey questions reflect girls’ perspectives, priorities, and language.

 

  1. It is suggested that the Learning Community review the experience of conducting this survey (strengths, weaknesses, challenges) to develop guidance for future surveys, especially on how training and mentoring might improve the number and quality of surveys returned and compliance with age guidelines for the sample.

 

  1. Conclusions on Restrictions

 

  1. Purpose of restrictions: Girls’ perceptions on the reasons for restrictions clustered around two

 

major issues: gender discrimination and safety. Discrimination due to caste or religion was mentioned by a significant minority.

 

  1. Who imposes the restrictions: Various categories of family members were mentioned most, but also some categories of community members, especially teachers and neighbors.

 

  1. Geographic/place restrictions: The ease of access to school was noted, as well as other places viewed as necessities for personal hygiene and domestic responsibilities. There were more restrictions for all activities related to recreation and cultural life, and for areas viewed as unsafe, such as “crowded places” and the railroad/metro stations.

 

  1. Autonomy: Most girls report exercising autonomy regarding education, food, clothing, and hospital care. However, almost 70% have no or little control over whom they marry, and more than 60% have no or little control over access to social media, or any transportation, limiting their range of mobility to their immediate neighborhood. The lack of control over marriage decisions is a key issue related to girls’ empowerment and development, and the restriction on transportation limits girls’ access to some educational institutions as well as to employment.

 

  1. Gender differences in restrictions: Girls focused mainly on boys’ relative freedom to go out at night and move freely around the community in public places.

 

  1. Effect of restrictions on girls: Girls’ comments reveal patterns of isolation and silencing both within the family and in the community, with limitation on their interactions with others. As a result, more than half of the girls said that the restrictions affect their “personality.” Another 25% reported that their skills and knowledge are compromised.

 

  1. Suggested Actions to Reduce Restrictions

 

  1. Increased policing and security measures: Most responses focused on increased policing and other security measures such as CCTV. The solutions proposed by the girls would improve their safety in public places and in school, which could lead to family members increased willingness to relax some of their restrictions.

 

  1. Changes in the family and oneself: Around 25% of girls focused more on family (235) and individual (206) interventions to address restrictions, with significant differences in giving priority to these spheres among the NGO communities surveyed.

 

 

 

 

14

 

 

 

 

NEXT STEPS FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING

 

 

  1. Drill down analysis by the girls

 

The first step for the next phase of the Learning Community is to empower girls to evaluate what their next steps will be in light of the survey results prioritize interests of and actions for the upcoming years.

 

  1. The independent evaluator will share the survey results with the LC girls on which places girls are most restricted to go to (according to responses from those from their organization as well as the overall results).

 

  1. Each NGO would then ask the LC girls the following questions:

 

  1. Of the top 3-4 results, which restrictions would the girls would most want to see lessened?

 

  1. Of these top 3-4 results, which restrictions would be harder and which would be easier to overcome?

 

  • Based on the table results, which 3-4 places would you like to focus on for the next phase of the learning community

 

  1. After all the groups have completed this exercise, the final results will be shared with the girls and they will come to a final consensus about the 3-4 places that they would like to remove restrictions fro girls.

 

The results can be presented in the following table.

 

Places Difficult to remove restrictions Easier to remove restrictions
Where I would most like to go   Campaign should focus on the
    areas in this box.
Where I would least like to go    

 

Those in the yellow shaded box suggest the areas that the Learning community should focus on (i.e., the places that they would like to go to the most, where they believe that they will be able to lift the restrictions most easily.) This exercise will enable the girls to focus their efforts – and see commonalities across their efforts as a direct result of the survey. Once this exercise has been completed for all groups, the most common suggestion(s) can be the topic for future interventions such as campaigns

 

  1. Focus Groups

 

After the girls have completed the exercise above, the independent consultant will conduct focus groups with:

 

  • Learning community girl leaders from all 4 years

 

  • Mentors of the learning community from all 4 years

 

  • 1:1 meetings with each Executive Director from the Learning Community partner organizations

 

  1. Girls (the focus groups will take place with girls from each organization, and should be comprised of Learning Community girls from all 4 years).

 

  1. According to you did the Make My Space campaign succeed/not so much?

 

  1. What should be the focus of Make My Space Campaign in the future?

 

  • How do you envision your role?

 

  1. What should be a mentor’s role?

 

  1. What should be an ED’s role?

 

 

 

15

 

  1. Scope and nature of partnership – Do we want to include new members?

 

  • What is the role of girl leaders from previous years?

 

  • How many groups?

 

  1. Mentors (the focus groups should bring together all the mentors, including, if possible, mentors from previous years).

 

  1. What are your thoughts about the drill down exercise that the girls have completed?

 

  1. Successes and limitations of the campaign according to you?

 

  • Should every cycle have new mentors, or should old mentors continue in some capacity?

 

  1. What should be the role of mentors, EDs & girls in the campaign

 

  1. How can we increase girls’ mobility in places where girls have more restrictions, as per the survey results and the exercises that girls have completed?

 

  1. What kind of support is expected from elective candidates?

 

  • What should be our advocacy strategy to reach out to policy makers?

 

  • What additional skills are required for mentors to facilitate the campaign by girls?

 

  1. According to you, what are the skill set required by girls to run the campaign further?

 

  1. EDs ( the independent evaluator will reach out to each organization’s ED for a 1:1 meeting)

 

  1. What are your thoughts about the drill down exercise that the girls have completed?

 

  1. Will you continue in the LC for the next 3 years?

 

  • What is your vision for the LC for the next 3 years?

 

  1. How would you like to be involved in the LC?

 

  1. What does the organizational partnership look like in the next phase according to you?

 

  1. Introspecting the last four years and survey results what should be the focus of the campaign in future? Which stakeholders should it focus on?

 

  • What has worked well for you and what hasn’t?

 

  • How can the LC support the mentors better?

 

  1. How can the LC support girls better?

 

  1. Other Analyses

 

In the case where the LC or individual organizations would like to see the survey results sliced in a different manner, there is the potential to examine the dataset in different ways (though this is not mandatory). Some ideas include:

 

  • Results by age range (10-14, 15-19, 20-24)

 

  • Results by basti

 

  • Results by caste/religion

 

If this is of interest to the LC organisations and girls, EMpower can provide the full dataset.

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16

 

ANNEX: TOP THREE RESPONSES ON POSSIBLE AC TIONS BY NGO

 

 

TABLE OF TOP THREE RESPONSES ON POSSIBLE ACTIONS BY NGO

 

When asked what can be done about         1st         2nd         3rd   Note: when responses are in a virtual tie, they are                
restrictions in different places or         men-         men         men                  
                          given the same ranking.                                  
areas (multiple choice)               tion         tion         tion                                    
                                                                                     
                                                                                                         
      Police Station   Street   Toilet       Changes in   Changes in Self   Railway               Playground            
                Family     Station   School/College     Festivals  
                                                                       
  Number                                                                                                        
Organizatio of %     N %     N %     N %     N %     N %     N %     N %     N %     N  
n response                                      
                                                                                                       
  s                                                                                                        
Akshara 73   27%     20     25%     18                 42%     31     42%     31                           25%     18            
Coro 48   60%     29     40%     19                                         44%     21                                  
Dosti (1) 99 56%   55     67%     66     59%     58                             61%     60 57%   56                        
Aangan LC 144   64%     92     63%     91     56%     80                             44%     63               44%     64            
SMS 97   79%     77     91%     88     91%     88                                       65%     63               66%     64  
Vacha 126   35%     44     36%     45                 56%     71     49%     62                                              
Vidhayak 137   53%     72     49%     67     49%     67     57%     78     57%     78                                              
Sansad                                                                                    
                                                                                                         
YWCA (2) 150                                       37%     55     23%     35               18%     24                        
                                                                         
TOTALS (3) 874 45%   389   45%   394   34%     293   27%   235   24%   206   16%   144 16%   143   9%   82 7%   64  
                                                                                                           

 

  • Dosti: more responses listed for Dosti because two areas were so close in numbers of responses to the 3rd place mention

 

  • YWCA: Seems that responses to many of these questions were missing in the YWCA questionnaires.

 

  • Number does not match the 947 that summary says were

completed.

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s